Indiana ballot measure · November 3, 2026
Indiana Public Question #1, explained
Denying bail when no release conditions would protect the community. A ballot measure is a yes-or-no question put directly to voters — no candidate is involved, and the wording on the ballot is the wording that becomes law. This page shows that wording first, then what it actually changes.
The official wording
Currently, under the Constitution of the State of Indiana, a person charged with murder or treason is not entitled to be released on bail if the proof is evident or the presumption strong. Shall the Constitution of the State of Indiana be amended to provide that a person charged with an offense other than murder or treason is not entitled to bail if: (1) the proof is evident or the presumption strong; and (2) the state proves by clear and convincing evidence that no release conditions will reasonably protect the safety of any other person or the community. (This question concerns Article 1, Section 17 of the Constitution of the State of Indiana.)
This is what appears on the ballot. Everything below explains it.
What it actually means
Indiana's constitution currently guarantees bail for every charge except murder and treason. This amendment would let a court hold someone before trial on any charge if two things are true: the evidence of guilt is strong, and the state proves by clear and convincing evidence that no set of release conditions would reasonably protect anyone else or the community. A companion statute, Senate Enrolled Act 2, sets out the procedure and takes effect only if voters approve.
If you vote YES
- Article 1, Section 17 would allow a court to deny bail on any offence, not just murder or treason, where the proof is evident or the presumption strong and the state proves by clear and convincing evidence that no release conditions would reasonably protect the safety of any other person or the community.
- The burden would be on the state, at the clear and convincing standard, and judges would have to make findings on the record rather than setting a high bail amount to achieve the same result.
- Senate Enrolled Act 2, passed in 2026 as a companion, would take effect, setting out when and how a court may deny bail, and Senate Bill 2's due-process provisions would apply.
- Indiana would join what the House sponsor described as 22 states with some form of preventive detention.
- The amendment would take effect on approval by a majority of those voting on the question.
If you vote NO
- Article 1, Section 17 would keep its current rule: every offence other than murder and treason is bailable by sufficient sureties, and murder or treason is not bailable only when the proof is evident or the presumption strong.
- Judges who consider a defendant dangerous would continue to work within that guarantee, which in practice often means setting bail high — a practice the House sponsor of the amendment criticised as creating "a two-tier justice system."
- Senate Enrolled Act 2, the companion bail statute, would not take effect.
- Indiana's cash bail system would remain as it is; opponents of the amendment argue that system is what should be changed instead.
Why supporters say YES
"This is a public safety amendment to the Indiana Constitution. Today … every criminal defendant is authorized to be released on bail, unless it is determined for treason, even if (they are) a substantial risk to the public." He argued detention should be "limited, reviewable, based on evidence," that in some cases "no conditions, no amount of money, no GPS monitor, no protective order, can reasonably protect the community," and that setting high bail instead "unnecessarily targets the underprivileged, and it creates a two-tier justice system."
— Rep. Chris Jeter (R-Fishers), House sponsor of Senate Joint Resolution 1
"SJR 1 addresses an important safety issue in our communities. This resolution moving forward is a great step toward ensuring our communities are protected from those who pose a threat."
— Sen. Eric Koch (R-Bedford), author of Senate Joint Resolution 1
Why opponents say NO
"We oppose this amendment because its vague and expansive language could keep more people who have not been convicted of a crime locked in Indiana's already overcrowded jails. Rather than expanding pretrial detention and deepening mass incarceration, lawmakers should be focused on reforming Indiana's broken cash bail system."
— ACLU of Indiana
"It's not based on the charge — it's based on the person, which makes this even more egregious. If you don't think there are some judges out here that may have bias in their community of certain people, then you haven't been to court in Indiana."
— Senate Minority Leader Greg Taylor (D-33)
"That's why we've brought together Hoosiers from all over the state to tell our neighbors that being serious about public safety means voting no on public question one." The coalition — Count Us IN, Live Free Indiana, Black Labor Week and Indiana Task Force — argues there is no evidence that holding people without bond makes communities safer and that the state should invest in community and crisis support programmes instead.
— Josh Riddick, executive director of Live Free Indiana
What’s genuinely uncertain
- How often courts would use the new power is unknown. Neither the state nor either campaign has published an estimate of how many defendants would be detained, how long they would be held, or what it would cost county jails.
- How "substantial risk" and "no release conditions" would be applied in practice will depend on Senate Enrolled Act 2 and on how trial courts and appellate courts read them; none of that has been tested.
- The amendment passed with cross-party support and cross-party opposition: every Republican voted for it, while Senate Democrats split 8-2 in favour and House Democrats split 15-11 in favour.
- No fiscal note for the amendment was located.
The bottom line
Whether a judge should be able to jail someone before trial on any charge where the evidence is strong and no release conditions would keep others safe; supporters say the constitution now forces judges to release people they believe are dangerous, opponents say the standard turns on the person rather than the charge and would put more unconvicted people in already crowded jails.
One neutral sentence describing the tradeoff — not a recommendation.
Checking it against the official text
The Indiana Election Division publishes the certified measures and, in most states, an official voter guide with fiscal notes. That is the authoritative version. Everything here is an explanation of it, not a substitute for it.
Confirm this with the official source
Your ballot is determined by your election authority, not by us. Verify your registration, precinct, and sample ballot at Indiana Election Division.
Other measures on the Indiana ballot
Candidates on the same ballot
- Indiana's 1st congressional district
- Indiana's 2nd congressional district
- Indiana's 3rd congressional district
- Indiana's 4th congressional district
- Indiana's 5th congressional district
- Indiana's 6th congressional district
- Indiana's 7th congressional district
- Indiana's 8th congressional district